Submitted by Additional-Two-7312 t3_y3delr in science
Anustart15 t1_is8c9uu wrote
Reply to comment by Freds_Bread in Class background still a marker for ‘success’ in later life, research shows by Additional-Two-7312
>when you die you should be able to pass nothing on to your children.
Even this wouldn't really be enough. A lot of the benefits of having family from the upper class come from the better education, connections, and opportunities, not just the money
bjornbamse t1_is8l6qm wrote
Yes, wealth is not just money. It is life knowledge and wisdom, self confidence, acceptance among people, habits.
Wealth is a multi-generational project. This is not inherently bad or unfair. What we need is to use this process to help rise more people. Help parents in need, so that they can get knowledge necessary, but also help kids move beyond their parents, help them get out of the lock-in effects.
seedanrun t1_is965nr wrote
We need some classes that teach about credit cards, dept, mortgages and credit scores in high school to start. And those need to be updated every 3 years.
We also need some classes about investing, passive income, and long term career planning - but I don't really think schools can teach this - I mean, what % of high school teachers really understand it?
Current-Escaper t1_is8nui9 wrote
I think there may be an implication that if your children don’t inherit anything another logical place for the inheritance to go would be into some of those community enrichment institutions and resources. Perhaps thereby closing the gap of which you speak.
I figure the rich don’t get rich from their own hard work alone, more so the higher you go. Money isn’t manifested by an individual, it takes many to facilitate the twisted funnels they’ve created and we’ve grown accustom to. It makes sense to me that perhaps to redistribute the wealth to the benefit of infrastructure/community/humanity would be far more prosperous for everyone, not just the currently living relatively fortunate few, than to morbidly hoard it to the detriment of the majority.
Freds_Bread t1_is8tyku wrote
But how do you assess or evaluate these two situations:
A small family business. A fruit stand, an auto mechanic shop, etc. Of you do not allow a parent to pass that to a child who wants to continue the business then you cannot really benefit "the community" by taking it away. In fact, in many cases the community is worse off for the loss of the business.
In the second situation you have two people who earn the same in their lifetimes. One spends everything as quickly as they earn it. The other lives more modestly, saving some for old age. But when the second one dies you take what they saved. In that case you are strongly reinforcing people to spend and not save. I do not think that helps a society.
The final problem I see with your no-inheritence approach is the parent who dies prematurely, leaving minor children behind. It is not a benefit to anyone to leave the children with nothing pecause the parent died.
seedanrun t1_is96hxn wrote
You've actually got a really good point.
If I knew the government was going to take all my Dad's cash I would help him blow every last penny before he died. Word vacations, on-site massages, and 100% Door-Dash eating until we burn it all away.
NEIC_ADMIN t1_isa36to wrote
Yep. The unspoken knowledge. When you are raised around high status people, you benefit from their connections, from learning upper class sociolect, mannerisms, style of dress, hobbies, even gait.
Me and my friend noticed years ago that poor men, unlike all other people in society, tend to swagger instead of walk. If you gave a poor man a good haircut and nice clothing that fit, you would still be able to tell he's poor because of his gait.
xDulmitx t1_is8erqx wrote
It's ok when you die someone will come along with a hammer to fix those advantages.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments